by David Solway (June 2021)
Untitled, Zdzislaw Beksinski
Looking around the world, one may be forgiven for thinking we have entered the realm of pure theater. A cast of actors strutting about in onkos and kothornos on a global stage—government officials, public health authorities, plutocrats, technocrats and “experts”—have convinced far too many of us that the play they are performing, called The Great Reset, is an auspicious reflection of the world-to-come. As it happens, the play’s not the thing. One recalls the lamentable Neil Ferguson of Imperial College London who created the main epidemiology model which, as Phillip Magness writes at the American Institute for Economic Research (AIER) “exaggerated the projected death tolls of COVID-19 in the absence of lockdowns by orders of magnitude.”
Oddly enough, we know from producer, playwright, and lead thespian Klaus Schwab, the architect of the Great Reset which envisions the entire re-making of Western society into a globalist oligopoly, that the pandemic is not an “existential threat.” Largely a manufactured crisis, it must be weaponized to deceive and suppress a credulous population and to stifle dissent in order to bring about the total restructuring of Western societies. Indeed, former Pfizer Vice President Michael Yeadon warns of the imminence of an ancillary “banking reset” leading to a totalitarian system unlike anything the world has ever seen.
As I’ve written elsewhere, Schwab exults that the mask mandates, quarantines, endless testing and mondo lockdowns that have destroyed a vast proportion of the world’s economies are necessary tactics to advance a strategy of domination and top-down political control. The disease constitutes “our defining moment.” And he really does mean it, for he also warns, “Many of us are pondering when things will return to normal. The short response is: never.” COVID “represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine and reset our world.” Nothing will be as before. We are, apparently, in the theater for keeps, a captive and spellbound audience, like the denizens in Plato’s allegory of the cave. The Great Reset is, in effect, a tedious four-act play, a tragifarce if ever there was one.
Illustration from A Better Perspective
Act 1 is “The Mask.” Thus, we are told to wear masks against COVID infection. Indeed, Schwab is now promoting the Chinese “smart mask” that tracks one’s breathing and ensures one’s overall compliance with a defacing mandate. Reality, however, gives the lie to the production. Masks are not only 100 percent useless but profoundly harmful. A study issued by ScienceDaily indicates that cloth masks’ retention of moisture, their reuse and poor filtration may explain the documented risk of infection. Worse, according to a research team at Swansea University in Wales, nanoplastics and other pollutants have been found in disposable facemasks. It appears that “the substances found have known links to cell death, genotoxicity and cancer formation.” Physicist and mathematician Denis Rancourt, whom I know personally and can attest to the meticulous nature of his scientific work, has produced a thoroughgoing study (one of several) showing why masks are to be avoided. He has experienced a number of pro-forma debunking attacks, but his results are hard to dispute.
While citing “experimental data that masks block particles,” the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) paradoxically admits it “is not aware of any randomized control trials that show that masks or double masks or cloth face coverings are effective against COVID-19.” The conclusion to a major study coming out of Stanford University and posted at the National Center for Biotechnological Information is even more emphatic:
The existing scientific evidences challenge the safety and efficacy of wearing facemask as preventive intervention for COVID-19. The data suggest that both medical and non-medical facemasks are ineffective to block human-to-human transmission of viral and infectious disease such SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19…Wearing facemasks has been demonstrated to have substantial adverse physiological and psychological effects. These include hypoxia, hypercapnia, shortness of breath, increased acidity and toxicity, activation of fear and stress response, rise in stress hormones, immunosuppression, fatigue, headaches, decline in cognitive performance, predisposition for viral and infectious illnesses, chronic stress, anxiety and depression. Long-term consequences of wearing facemask can cause…progression of chronic diseases and premature death.
Adding to the litany of woes, reports and videos have been circulating showing that masks harbor flatworms triggering microbial contamination such as Morgellons Disease. Foreseeably, many of these items have been quickly taken down and replaced by politically biased sites like Reuters. The Google Doodle for May 1, 2021, featuring a row of dancing, masked puppet-like figures, continues to push the official narrative. But the narrative is nothing less than a form of disinformation. It now turns out that masks can take up to 450 years to degrade, leaving us with a huge disposal problem. Thankfully, our mainstream politicians and media types will degrade much more quickly, though, unfortunately, the problems they have created will not.
The Internet, it needs to be said, has become an excellent masking device to prevent the infection of truth, filtering out almost every particle of adversarial comment and contrarian studies in favor of official and media advocacy. And it will work hard to discredit any contradictory evaluation, as it has duly done with the Stanford study. One has to dig deep to find non-affiliated analytical research. Like the mainstream media and Big Tech, the Internet is in the business of exploiting public trust. They keep making up the science.
Act 2 is “The Lockdown,” another piece of theatrical deception. As if masks were not sufficiently baneful and demoralizing, we are compelled to endure one lockdown after another, a clear indication that lockdowns don’t work. After an initial two-week cessation of almost all normal life and productive activity in order to “flatten the curve,” we find ourselves more than a year later in many places still living in a state of government coercion and even house arrest as society and the economy disintegrate day by day. Philippine president Rodrigo Duterte warned anti-lockdowners they could be shot. “Is that understood? Dead. Instead of causing trouble, I will bury you.” How public order can be maintained by threat, violence and disorder remains unaddressed.
Here is an abridged tabulation culled from a thick portfolio of multiple studies yielded by diligent searching before they are predictably scrubbed. They prove beyond a shred of doubt the inefficiency and destructiveness of lockdowns:
“there is no evidence that more restrictive nonpharmaceutical interventions (“lockdowns”) contributed substantially to bending the curve of new cases in England, France, Germany, Iran, Italy, the Netherlands, Spain, or the United States in early 2020.” https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/eci.134one loickdown after another84
“government actions such as border closures, full lockdowns, and a high rate of COVID-19 testing were not associated with statistically significant reductions in the number of critical cases or overall mortality.” https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30208-X/fulltext
“Given that the evidence reveals that the Corona disease declines even without a complete lockdown, it is recommendable to reverse the current policy and remove the lockdown” https://www.timesofisrael.com/the-end-of-exponential-growth-the-decline-in-the-spread-of-coronavirus/
“stay at home orders, closure of all non-essential businesses and requiring the wearing of facemasks or coverings in public was not associated with any independent additional impact.” https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.01.20088260v2
“The case of Sweden, where the authors find the reduction in transmission to have been only moderately weaker than in other countries despite no lockdown having occurred, is prima facie evidence.” https://nicholaslewis.org/did-lockdowns-really-save-3-million-covid-19-deaths-as-flaxman-et-al-claim/
“results presented in the report suggested that the addition of interventions restricting younger people might actually increase the total number of deaths from covid-19” https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m3588
“the data…shows a decrease in infection rates after countries eased…lockdowns with >99% statistical significance. Indeed…infection rates have declined after reopening even after allowing for an appropriate measurement lag.” https://imgcdn.larepublica.co/cms/2020/05/21180548/JP-Morgan.pdf
“restrictions imposed by the pandemic (e.g, stay-at-home orders) could claim lives indirectly through delayed care for acute emergencies, exacerbations of chronic diseases, and psychological distress (e.g, drug overdoses).” https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768086
“Comparing weekly mortality in 24 European countries, the findings in this paper suggest that more severe lockdown policies have not been associated with lower mortality. In other words, the lockdowns have not worked as intended.” https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3665588
“Whether a county had a lockdown has no effect on Covid-19 deaths; a non-effect that persists over time. Cross-country studies also find lockdowns are superfluous and ineffective (Homber2020). “https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00779954.2020.1844786?journalCode=rnzp20
“There are no historical observations…that support.. confinement by quarantine of groups of possibly infected people for extended periods…The negative consequences…are so extreme…this mitigation..should be eliminated from serious consideration.” http://www.upmcbiosecurity.org/website/resources/publications/2006/2006-09-15-diseasemitigationcontrolpandemicflu.html
“After preprocessing the data, 87 regions around the world were included, yielding 3741 pairwise comparisons for linear regression analysis. Only 63 (1.6%) comparisons were significant. With our results, we were not able to explain if COVID-19 mortality is reduced by staying at home in 98% of the comparisons after epidemiological weeks 9 to 34.” https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-84092-1
“For the first time in human history, lockdowns were used as a strategy to counter the virus. While conventional wisdom, to date, has been that lockdowns were successful…we find not one piece of evidence supporting this claim.” http://ssbhalla.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Lockdowns-Closures-vs.-COVID19-Covid-Wins-Nov-4.pdf
“The peculiar aspect of the claim that lockdown accounts for 81% of the reduction in R is that Sweden did not implement any lockdown, but still see a similar decrease in R. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.14.20175240v1.full.pdf
“Japan took the atypical step of not instituting a mandatory lockdown. During this time, businesses, restaurants, & transportation were kept open, & public life continued relatively unabated. Nevertheless, the second wave peaked and subsided on its own.” https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.09.21.20198796v1.full.pdf
“The stay-at-home orders…seem to have made no observable tangible impact on the daily cases & deaths. Further the most severe restrictions, such as prolonged lockdown…in California in Nov, did not prevent the subsequent spike in cases or fatalities.” https://c2cjournal.ca/2021/03/do-lockdowns-make-a-difference-in-a-pandemic/
“We demonstrate that effects of NPIs are non-robust and highly sensitive to model specification, assumptions and data employed to fit models.” “The model proposing major benefits from lockdown in European countries had the worse fit to the data.” https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(21)00087-1/fulltext
“life loss due to lockdowns themselves has never been taken into consideration” “pro-lockdown evidence is shockingly thin & based largely on comparing real-world outcomes against dire computer-generated forecasts derived from empirically untested models.” https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3784709
A research paper by Simon Fraser University economics professor Douglas Allen (echoing Texas Tech professor Gilbert Berdine’s warning that “history will likely judge these lockdowns to be the greatest policy error of this generation”) concludes that the lockdown policy was clearly disastrous. Politicians cannot admit they made a mistake. What politician would admit that “we actually did the equivalent of killing 600,000 people this last year?,” Allen asks, rhetorically.
Based on a cost/benefit analysis considering reduced graduation rates, earnings and long-run health status, Allen calculates that the lockdowns “are 282 times worse than their benefits,” that is, the cost for avoiding 22,333 years of lost life was 6,300,000 years of lost life. Anthony Furey in the Toronto Sun points as well to a somewhat less dramatic study by the New Zealand Productivity Commission that “found that the long-term harms were almost 100 times greater than the benefits.” (This, too, will be taken down.) The main upshot of the lockdowns, it appears, was to incubate and/or aggravate the disease. Similarly, Dr. Byram Bridle, a viral immunologist at Guelph University, calls the official response to COVID “the greatest mismanaged crisis of our time.” Plainly, if they did the job they were intended to, as we were led to believe, there would be no need of their proliferation.
Act 3 is called “The Test,” still another threadbare and histrionic performance contradicted by the world outside the theater. It is worth spending some time with the testing issue since it has led to a significant number of false positives, providing the rationale for further restrictions.
The testing mechanism is faulty, using a cycle amplification program that tests for innocuous viral fragments and dead virus. The testing method, RT-PCR (reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction) is too sensitive to generate reliable results. The typical cycle threshold (Ct) of between 33 to 40 and higher will pick up junk virus. As The Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine has found, “This detection might correspond to a virus that is now incapable of infecting cells. The meaning is that the PCR positive is a non-infectious positive.” Similarly, The New York Times finds that, in several states, “up to 90 percent testing positive carried barely any virus.”
In confirmation, specialists Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson explain in The Spectator that “Inactivated RNA…degrades slowly: it can be detected weeks after infectiousness has gone.” In misleading both professionals and the public, “mass testing might cause more harm than good if the nuances of test threshold are not understood.” Writing in PJ Media, Stacey Lennox points out as well that “in December of 2020, the revision to the CDC guidelines for laboratories still used a Ct of 40 as the threshold to be considered negative,” yet “the CDC website still says the Ct does not indicate illness severity or infectiousness.” The inventor of the PCR diagnostic test, the late Nobel Laureate Dr. Kary Mullis, who has been predictably maligned in the press, should be heeded as a trustworthy witness. “It doesn’t tell you that you are sick,” he said, “or the thing you ended up with is going to hurt you.” (COVID-19 Unmasked, at time stamp 58:20.)
The CDC, as The Guardian reports, is now adjusting its testing protocols, lowering test cycles for vaccinated people and raising them for the unvaccinated, creating a “‘disease’ that can appear or disappear depending on how you measure it…This is a policy designed to continuously inflate one number, and systematically minimise the other. What is that if not an obvious and deliberate act of deception?” The Guardian concludes: “If these new policies had been the global approach to ‘Covid’ since December 2019,” that is, employing reasonable test cycles for all participants, “there would never have been a pandemic at all.”
Finally, a recent court judgment in Germany, dating April 8, 2021, has put paid to the issue. “[O]nly genetic material can be detected with the PCR test used, but not whether the RNA comes from viruses that are capable of infection and therefore capable of replication. [A] PCR test…cannot make any statement as to whether a person is infected with an active pathogen or not. Because the test cannot differentiate between “dead” matter, e.g. a completely harmless genome fragment as a remnant of the fight of the body’s own immune system, and ‘living’ matter.” Such assessments, which appear fully veridical and multiply thick and fast, will of course be scanted by the interested actors and a supporting cast of thousands in the media and government-aligned medical organizations pushing the conventional counterfactual narrative. Some will even advocate for more “cheap, simple, rapid tests.” And now we are informed that negative tests are also inaccurate. Given the parsimony of dependable results, perhaps it would be advisable to scrap the tests altogether.
Act 4 is “The Vaccine,” which is still being played out. As I have argued at length, the vaccines may cause more harm than good since they are genomic substances responding to what is likely a digital virus. In other words, they are not really “vaccines.” Moreover, whatever good they may cause may be a vanishing quantity. There is no evidence that these recently developed vaccines will be effective since it is logically and empirically impossible to test for immediate results; a negative test following injection proves nothing as the recipient may already have been resistant prior to the vaccine. Additionally, no longitudinal studies can have been conducted since the future hasn’t happened yet. Nonetheless, governments in different countries—Canada, for example—still impose local travel restrictions and still require vaccinated travelers returning from abroad, including those who have tested negative, to be sequestered. They do not seem confident in the effectiveness of the vaccines despite bruiting the introduction of vaxxports, perhaps as another level of control.
The trouble is that reliable vaccines require ten or more years to develop and test, moving from the Exploratory to the Pre-clinical to the Trial and finally Post-licensure stages before they can be approved as safe for public distribution. Otherwise, not only their immediate efficacy but their future impact remains unknown. Michael Yeadon believes these vaccines, as they “go from the computer screens…into the arms of millions of people,” may contain “characteristics which could be harmful and could even be lethal.” Yeadon says that herd immunity was reached in April 2020. He continues: “One of the things I’ve noticed that has happened in recent years is that we almost seem to be moving post-science, post-facts, as if facts don’t matter.” Yeadon is no crank, or he would not have risen to the top of the pharmaceutical ladder.
It appears evident that the vaccines have been irresponsibly developed, veritable Rube Goldberg machines cobbled hurriedly together and relying not on dispositive proofs but on instant official accreditation and public acceptance—even though they lack approval from any government agency, and serious adverse reactions are through the roof. VAERS, a passive, voluntary site, reports a devastating casualty count. My circle of acquaintance is limited, but I know of six people who have been hospitalized almost immediately post-vaccine. One, a guitarist, finds he can no longer use his right hand. Three are now dead.
New York Times reporter Alex Berenson, while promoting the vaccines in his recently published Unreported Truths… (4), admits that “COVID vaccines are leaky. They do not offer complete protection,” and cites the CDC’s disclaimer that ‘vaccinated people could still get COVID-19 and spread it to others.’ Berenson and the CDC are patently hedging their bets. Still, skeptics will be chastised for encouraging vaccine hesitancy, even though the troubling number of what are called “breakthrough” cases, “adverse events,” and post-vaccination deaths—despite the inevitable media denials—would go a long way toward explaining such reluctance. As the aforementioned viral immunologist Dr. Byram Bridle confides, he would not take the vaccines.
In brief, studies regarding Pfizer’s claim that its vaccines are 95% effective have been disputed by credible medical personnel and organizations. Dr. Peter Doshi, writing for the prestigious BMJ (British Medical Journal), shows that there is a troubling degree of statistical legerdemain at work, and that the 95% figure should rather be 19%. Current trials, he states, are not designed to tell us if the vaccines save lives. The Defender (Children’s Health Defense) is equally concerned. “Thousands of individuals,” it reports, “have posted COVID vaccine injury stories on social media. Facebook recently deleted a group for COVID-19 vaccine victims and families that had in excess of 120,000 followers—the group ‘had been gaining more than 10,000 followers per week. The company’s action is part of an unabashed Big Tech effort,” the journal summarizes, “to curtail online discussions of vaccine risks and rebrand them as “misinformation.”
The Defender closes its argument with an observation from physicist and medical doctor Richard Fleming. Drawing attention to the mounting evidence of COVID vaccine dangers, “Fleming recently described increased risks for inflammation and blood clotting as well as a worrisome type of protein clumping associated with dementia and other neurological disorders.” In the summarizing words of Archbishop Carlo Maria Viganó, a consortium of government authorities, medical bureaucrats and the media have “promoted the use of an alleged vaccine, which is actually a genetic serum…with widely demonstrated short-term side effects, while the long-term effects are still to be seen.” Naturally, we are not getting the information we need in order to make a reasonable decision as to receiving the jab. Project Veritas, for example, has exposed Facebook’s censoring of vaccine concerns. The goal is to “drastically reduce user exposure to vaccine hesitancy (VH) in comments.”
An attendant question is whether what governments designate as a public emergency, in this case specifying mandatory vaccines to combat COVID-19, violate the Informed Consent principle of the Nuremberg Code. A multitude of “factchecking” sites declare that the Nuremberg principles are compatible with the vaccinations, adding that the clinical trials for the vaccines are medically valid. The issue is vexed but, in the absence of short-term as well as long-term receipts, both assumptions seem highly suspect.[*]
Since masks are pointless, lockdowns injurious, testing defective and vaccines controversial at best and toxic at worst, one can only conclude that almost everything public health authorities have stipulated and government officials have mandated has been catastrophically misguided. A video released by the Canadian Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, aptly titled Covid: The Political Pandemic, anatomizes the “daily and ongoing violation of our human rights and fundamental freedoms.” Analogously, the scale of the menace we are facing, says Michael Yeadon, not from COVID but from the oligarchs and technocrats who have exploited it, may well be unprecedented. It is nothing less than a concerted attempt by a dramatis personae of billionaire actors and their cohorts to re-engineer the ecology of everyday life, commerce, tradition and expectation. After all, the play must go on.
The trouble is, The Great Reset is a dog of a play. It remains only to be seen whether enough of us can be persuaded to leave the theater and see the play fold rather than unfold.
[*] The first principle in the Nuremberg Code reads: “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved, as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision.” [“Trials of War Criminals before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals under Control Council Law No. 10”, Vol. 2, pp. 181-182. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1949.]
Follow NER on Twitter @NER